Search This Blog

Abolish the freedom of religion!

I am rather fond of most of our freedoms. But one I’d like to get rid of isthefreedom of
religion. At best, that
principle is completely superfluous, but in most cases it’s also discriminatory, arbitrary, and absurd.

The principle of “freedom of religion” is enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The constitution of my own country, Belgium, has a special article devoted to it (we call it “freedom of
worship”), as do the constitutions of many other countries.
Nonetheless, I think this principle should
be abolished.

Why? All freedoms to which religious believers are entitled
are already secured intheUniversal
Declaration of Human Rights, especiallythefreedom of thought and conscience andthefreedom of assembly. Why must our secular constitutions include a special principle called “freedom
of religion,” with some
(as in Belgium) mentioning other
beliefs and convictions almost as an afterthought? All opinions should be free,
whether they’re called “religious” or not.

The special treatment
of religion, to be sure, has historical roots. Our liberal principles
originated in an era in which people were persecuted for their religious beliefs, by—it should be noted—people with a different set of religious beliefs. In a
more mature liberalism, however, as developed by thinkers such
as Spinoza and John Stuart
Mill, religious liberty falls within the broader concept of freedom of expression. “Freedom of
religion” is a relic from an era of religious intolerance, in which the most
common reason why people smashed each other’s heads was that they worshipped
the wrong god. Nonreligious differences of opinion simply didn’t provoke such hatred and wholesale
slaughter.

But is there any harm intheredundant,
separate mention of a freedom of
religion in our constitutions and human rights declarations? Let’s compare it
withthefreedom of gastronomical beliefs orthefreedom of opinions expressed on Thursdays. It is
obviously superfluous but still harmless,
right?

Unfortunately, it’s not
that simple. According to a common misconception—that everyone is free to express, of course—religion deserves special privileges. All opinions are
free, so goestheargument, but religious ones are freer than others.
You always need to “respect” faith. After all, isn’t there such a thing as freedom of religion?

Rather than just being redundant, this interpretation ofthefreedom of religion is blatantly discriminatory. TaketheBelgian Council of State’s recent recommendation that a general ban on
the unstunned slaughter of animals
infringes on the religious liberty of Muslims and Jews, who are compelled by
their faith to practice ritual slaughter without stunning. In this case,
religion is given a free pass.Thevery same
act is deemed illegal when committed by one group (atheists) but permitted for a different group (Muslims and
Jews). As Brian Leiter argued in his book Why
Tolerate Religion?, there is no convincing reason why religious beliefs and
practices should be entitled to special privileges and exemptions from
generally applicable laws. If you follow that line of reasoning, then a special
principle called “freedom of religion” is inherently unfair and discriminating.

Moreover, what exactly is “religion,” anyway? By enshriningtheill­conceived notion of freedom of religion inour constitution, our poor state obliges itself to practice cultural
anthropology and even theology. Does every authentic religion have a creation
story or a belief in a kind of afterlife? Is a supreme being or religious
service required? Is a holy book an essential ingredient? None of these characteristics is culturally
universal. Bytheway, how many people do you need to form a religion? Is a single prophet’s voice inthewilderness sufficient?

Take our Eurocentric fixation on sacred books.The Qur’an contains vague stipulations about covering one’s body. Muslims
frequently invoke those verses to demandtheright to wear a headscarf anywhere. Ironically, many of those who favor
a ban onthe headscarf
in European countries get bogged down in exegesis as well. Doesthetext really say one should cover one’s head or isthechest area enough? Doestheban violate
religious freedom or not?

But that discussion is absurd. Believers enjoytheright to adopt an original or even ridiculous interpretation of any
text. Consider this: Why would an ancient book qualify as a criterion inthefirst
place? Suppose a Muslim woman claims that it’s her innermost conviction that
Allah desires her to wear that headscarf, regardless of whatthe Qur’an or imam says. Perhaps an archangel
personally whispered it into her ear. Whoever doesn’t recognize that as “religion” bows tothemight ofthe majority and discriminates against religious
innovators and minorities.

And think of it theother way around: supposethe Qur’an stipulates, literally and unambiguously, that women should walk around
in burqas everywhere, with just a tiny slit for one single eye,
as a Saudi cleric recently suggested. Would that forcethestate to admit: “Thebook says
so, therefore we have to allow it?” Is astrology a religion? Naturism? Rastafarianism? Everyone who fancies
doing so can appropriatethelabel religion and all its attendant privileges, because there is no reputable
anthropological definition of religionanyway.
This is exactly what Scientology godfather L. Ron Hubbard did. After he had
been sued for illicit practice of medicine, he rebranded
his whole doctrinal shebang as a
“religion,” as a result of which
Scientology (previously Dianetics) nowadays still enjoys tax­exempt status inthe United States—because it’s a “religion,” you see.

If that’s how it works, this atheist cannot lag behind.TheAlmighty has just informed me, through my sensus divinitatis, that this article containstheinfallible
and final revelation concerning all religious issues:All of thee
shall respect my religion!The very paper on
which this revelation is printed is holy. Whoever throws away this magazine inthe trash can, or runs it throughthepaper shredder, commits blasphemy.

Lord, deliver us fromthefreedom of
religion!

Piece in Free Inquiry(january 2017). This article is adapted from an opinion piece published in the Belgian newspaper De Tijd, as translated by Leon Korteweg.

I think you are missing an important point. The freedom of religion gives us the freedom to be under a separate authority. It doesn't necessarily mean that such authority must supercede the authority of the state in all cases, but it does mean that the state must be humble enough to allow for individuals who are subservient to other authorities.

So, for instance, Jews cannot work on the Sabbath. Without the freedom of religion, laws could easily be made which exclude Jews. Just put a stipulation in a law that says that any public servant must work one Saturday a month, and you can easily exclude any orthodox Jew. Freedom of religion means that we must understand that certain others are under different authorities, and that the state does not have the unambiguous right to be the sole authority for humans.

It is a messy principle, and its application has been messy as well, but life itself is kind of messy, too.

This is not the missing point. This ís the whole point. Perhaps other people prefer not to work on saturdays either for other, more practical reasons. Why should an orthodox Jew be any different just because he calls his reasons "religious"? At some point orthodoxy and society will always clash. Orthodoxy is in some way the will to be outside society and to be under a separate authority, as you pointed out. Perhaps the problem you mention here is not religion but orthodoxy.